|
Post by mikeindex on Apr 11, 2008 2:57:47 GMT -5
John, I took the liberty of retitling your last post (under 'Movie?') but then found I could not move it to a new thread.
Anyway - does anyone else know the Jonathan Dixon illustrations, published about ten years ago in a new edition by the LCSNA? I think they're absolutely delightful (the Beaver especially) and full of very clever touches.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by joelbirenbaum on Apr 11, 2008 14:54:38 GMT -5
The Dixon Snark is still available for sale from the LCSNA at lewiscarroll.org It will cost you a touch more if you are not a member.
Joel
|
|
|
Post by dough42 on Apr 11, 2008 19:52:13 GMT -5
Mike: The Jonathan Dixon Snark is indeed contains a wonderful set of illustrations. One "clever touch" is the way in which he shows Snark Island landscape as a simulacrum of LC's profile, on both the front cover and the frontispiece. This technique is examined in much more detail by John Tufail in "The Illuminated Snark", his masterly enquiry into the relationship between text and illustration where he discusses the cryptic messages conveyed in some of Holiday's background scenery. As a Co-Moderator of this Section with Mahendra, I ought to be able to post the Dixon jpg but I haven't yet worked out how to do this. Can anyone enlighten me?. Meanwhile, as Joel notes, a few copies of the Dixon edition are still availoable from the LCSNA at a far better price that you could find anywhere else on the www. I recommend it. Doug H
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 12, 2008 4:20:36 GMT -5
As a Co-Moderator of this Section with Mahendra, I ought to be able to post the Dixon jpg but I haven't yet worked out how to do this. Can anyone enlighten me?. Doug H The image needs to be already on the web somewhere - if the Dixon illustration isn't, you need to upload it somewhere or other (Photobucket, for example). Then, when you send your post to the forum, click on the little picture icon fourth from the left of the second row in the 'Add tags' section. The text [/img] will appear - paste in the image's URL between the two bracketed bits. I have never done this myself but I understand this is the theory!
|
|
frockmaker
Rook
"I'm forty, unmarried and I work in musiclal theatre - you do the math"
Posts: 22
|
Post by frockmaker on Apr 12, 2008 6:37:05 GMT -5
yeah just create a photobucket account (or similar), load your pics there and it will give you a line of code to copy to post them here. Easy once you get the hang of it.
|
|
|
Post by dough42 on Apr 12, 2008 22:11:32 GMT -5
Dear Admin & Frockmaker, Thanks for your advice and help. I now have a Photobucket account and will attempt now to paste the Dixon pic.
|
|
frockmaker
Rook
"I'm forty, unmarried and I work in musiclal theatre - you do the math"
Posts: 22
|
Post by frockmaker on Apr 13, 2008 6:48:52 GMT -5
Nice, do we get more? Have never seen this guy's work.
|
|
|
Post by quadzool on Apr 23, 2008 11:21:47 GMT -5
Here is an illustrated Centennial Copy from 1981 with Holliday's illustrations:
|
|
|
Post by dough42 on May 6, 2008 6:28:21 GMT -5
Dear Frockmaker, Sorry it has taken me so long to repond to your request. I was a little diffident about posting pix (now sorted) and also I'm not too sure how the LCSNA will respond to too much scanning of Dixon's illustrations as they are the publishers and hold the copyright. However, for your patience, I reckon you deserve at least one Dixon illustration and here it is, Dixon's wonderful Baker leaping around amongst his boxes on the beach : I hope you like it (now buy the book from LCSNA)Kind regards, Doug H.
|
|
|
Post by jdixon on Jan 28, 2009 21:02:13 GMT -5
Hello to anyone who might still be moderating or interested in this thread ...
I was just searching some things on the internet and unexpectedly stumbled upon these two great whacking scans of my own Snark drawings ... which left me speechless in itself ... but then I also read down into the immensely humbling comments. MANY thanks.
Mahendra, I've seen your illustrations before on your site and consider them among the best sets of Snark illustrations. It's definitely a book that's been illustrated badly a lot -- (which is one reason I took a crack at it; there was nothing too brilliant or definitive to compete against, such as Tenniel's for Alice) -- so it's always nice to see some talent and thought going into it. And, yes, publishers are idiots when it comes to this book. I consider myself very lucky that I bumbled into contact with the LCSNA at just the right time.
Thanks again, and all best, Jonathan Dixon
|
|
|
Post by mahendra on Jan 29, 2009 8:55:11 GMT -5
Thank you very much for the too-kind comments, John! I must say, when I first saw your Snark Island, I was quite smitten with it, a brilliant entry point to an equally well-done interior! BTW, the hand-lettered title copy is really good, did you do it? I agree with you, the Snark is oddly deficient in the illustrator's department and your comments about the good offices of the LCSNA clearly show why: publishers are utterly uninterested in the Snark, no matter how well done it is and hence, those Snarks that do see the light of day are often hastily assigned and indifferently executed. Also, the Snark is such an odd text, there is no readily apparent handle for an illustrator, you have to really trust your instincts and reach into your artistic subconscious and let it all hang out, as they say. I think a lot of illustrators who rely on stylistic tricks and trendy fashions to further their career are totally nonplussed by its lack of easy access. Which is probably for the best … Just in case someone's interested in further comparisons, here is the URL for Herbjørn Andresen's comprehensive catalog of all illustrated Snarks, good hunting! folk.uio.no/herbjora/snarkillustrators.html
|
|
|
Post by mikeindex on Jan 29, 2009 13:49:00 GMT -5
Jonathan, welcome to the list. What a pleasure to meet you in (virtual) person after admiring your illustrations for some years now. My favourite is the Beaver. I also love the use of bathing machines, which after all add to the beauty of any scene.
All the best
Mike
|
|
|
Post by jdixon on Feb 1, 2009 19:20:57 GMT -5
Thanks, Mahendra and Mike.
"publishers are utterly uninterested in the Snark, no matter how well done it is "
After a certain amount of time had passed and I was free to offer my illustrations to other, larger publishers than the LCSNA, I hit brick wall after brick wall, as you seem to have done. A common response was that "there are already so many editions on the market" -- when, in reality, there was only the Penguin paperback with Martin Gardner's annotations, nothing in the form of a nice STORYBOOK. They don't have a clue. I even offered it to Dover for NOTHING -- just to get it out there -- and they showed some interest, but turned it down too.
"the Snark is such an odd text, there is no readily apparent handle for an illustrator, you have to really trust your instincts and reach into your artistic subconscious and let it all hang out"
That, or people try to be so CLEVER with it that the pictures really have little to do with the actual story. (I realize I'm talking to someone who is doing just that ... but yours really ARE clever! And just breathtaking from the simple matter of drawing technique.)
My approach and handle was to make it accessible and JUST TELL THE BLOODY STORY in a straightforward way. If the text said a character did something, just show it happening. I approached it as a movie, actually. I also wanted it to be very faithful to the feel of Mr. Dodgson, so I stuffed myself full of his works and letters and life, hoping it would all then come out of my fingers in the end.
That said, I loved that there was still room for so many of my subconscious and personal influences to be thrown in in an unforced way: Akira Kurasawa films, Chinese art, Monty Python, Carl Jung (he's the Judge of the Dream, of course), Carroll's original illustrators, Terry Gilliam movies, cute Disney characters, Maxfield Parrish, Goya, Bosch ...
I'm glad you like the Beaver, Mike. I'm kind of attached to him myself. (I'll tell you a secret. He was really based on an otter. They are cuter!) He was tricky, first of all trying to capture his deadpan character, but also it was sometimes tough to find a balance where he didn't end up looking like a cross between Mickey Mouse and Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolfman.
As is probably appropriate with Carroll, the Bathing Machine picture actually came to me in a dream. I had been wracking my brain trying to figure out how to depict a "beautiful scene" (with a bathing machine supposedly adding to it), and one night the Maxfield Parrish parody came to me, just as you see it. (I had also wanted to include one more parody picture, as Carroll used to do parodies of paintings himself, I believe.)
Best, Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by mahendra on Feb 2, 2009 14:36:12 GMT -5
Dear Jonathan,
Yes, yes, yes! The foibles & follies of publishers make me want to just scream sometimes. I also submited my Snark to Dover, they were very nice about it, but they also said no. I think I've submitted to about 25-30 houses, I will keep at it but I have no hope of success anymore, the market for work like the Snark is gone permanently. Also, publishers loathe the old-fashioned quieter line art style that both you & I prefer, they especially seem to dislike the deliberate display of good draftsmanship, it's quite out of fashion now.
You are exactly right about the Snark bringing up the unconscious reference files we keep in our heads, that is the peculiar strength of the Snark! For me, the starting point was the theatrical nature of it, CLD's love of theater and the British penchant for good theater/music hall, etc. It's a performance, a tragicomedy inside one's head wherein all the disused props from long-forgotten earlier productions are all brought into play in new combinations. The anapestic rhythms also give it a Gilbert & Sullivan feel.
I agree about telling the story, although our stories are somewhat divergent, which is another strength of the Snark again, it is deeply divergent yet organically whole and also very forgiving of different approaches as long as they are aesthetically & structurally honest. No fakers need apply!
Your Beaver problems are similar to mine, it's such a visually clumsy character.
JV Lord's version was very good also. And Peake's.
very best, mahendra
|
|
|
Post by GoetzKluge on Feb 2, 2009 17:06:38 GMT -5
...Also, publishers loathe the old-fashioned quieter line art style that both you & I prefer, they especially seem to dislike the deliberate display of good draftsmanship, it's quite out of fashion now... Mahendra, From 2001 to 2003 I lived in Japan, and what I saw in the bookshops there is quite different from what I saw in North America. Drawings like your's may be more successful there. Europe (I'm back in Germany now) also could be a more interesting market to you. So far for the aesthetics. Unfortunately I do not know a thing about the publishing business. - Perhaps quality will become more important anyway again after all the quick and cheap business in the past years. Goetz
|
|